Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Boehner: "We can't begin to talk about potential solution" yet

In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" over the weekend, House Minority Leader John Boehner suggested that now is not the time to talk about finding solutions to vast problems that continue to plague the country.

"It's time for us as Americans to have an adult conversation with each other about the serious challenges our country faces. And we can't have that serious conversation until we lay out the size of the problem," explained Boehner to FNC host Chris Wallace. "Now, once Americans understand how big the problem is, then we can begin to talk about potential solutions."

The remarks from the ranking Republican came in response to questions about potential shortcomings some have identified in the "Pledge to America" manifesto that the House GOP unveiled last week.

Here's the exchange that then went down:

WALLACE: But forgive me, sir. I mean, isn't the right time to have the adult conversation now before the election when you have this document? Why not make a single proposal to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

BOEHNER: Chris, this is what happens here in Washington. When you start down that path, you just invite all kinds of problems. I know. I've been there. I think we need to do this in a more systemic way and have this conversation first. Let's not get to the potential solutions. Let's make sure Americans understand how big the problem is. Then we can begin to talk about possible solutions and then work ourselves into those solutions that are doable.

But, a press release posted on Boehner's House website characterizes the "Pledge" as "a new governing agenda." It quotes the Ohio Republican as saying:

'A Pledge to America' offers a new way forward that hasn't been tried in Washington: an approach focused on cutting spending instead of accelerating spending, and eliminating uncertainty for the private-sector innovators and entrepreneurs who create jobs. These are the solutions the American people are demanding, and Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid should act on them before Congress adjourns for the fall."

Despite the hype surrounding the "Pledge" prior to its debut, some big name Republicans have since reacted to its contents with a less than enthusiastic response.

Possible 2012 Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee said he liked the document, but added, "I just wish there were a couple of things that would've been the 'Wow' type elements to the pledge that could've made it even stronger."

Similarly, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who's made no secret he's mulling a White House bid, told the Daily Caller that the "Pledge" from the House GOP "is a significant boost for them, but it is not a homerun."

He's saying lets put all the things on the table then work on it. NOt lets find a solution wihtout knowing the question.

And no one will want to find any solutions or mention the problem now.

Heck that's why congress is leaving now, so they can campaign.

He's a politician, there is always a motive behind what politicians say. In this case. Boehner is saying "Im going to pretend like I am going to bring both parties together and 'talk' about the country's problems, this way I look like the compromiser, and it stalls the Democrats, and best case scenario it looks like the Dems aren't doing anything and they lose the mid term elections"

Clinton probably worked with the opposition more then anyone, but he didn't campaign on it like Obama did. Clinton was more forced too work with the opposition, but I'll admit he did a pretty good job with it, mostly because he was a quasi fiscal conservative, and Newt preached fiscal responsiblity.

Clinton probably worked with the opposition more then anyone, but he didn't campaign on it like Obama did. Clinton was more forced too work with the opposition, but I'll admit he did a pretty good job with it, mostly because he was a quasi fiscal conservative, and Newt preached fiscal responsiblity.

Every president regardless of party has preached partisan cooperation at one point or another, the reason why Obama's seemed more so than others is because he was the most recent memory, the election was 2 years ago, also, the political parties did break from one another more so than usual because of the Bush presidency and policy actions. Carter, Reagan even George W. Bush ran on partisan slogans like "I'm a uniter not a divider"

Clinton probably worked with the opposition more then anyone, but he didn't campaign on it like Obama did. Clinton was more forced too work with the opposition, but I'll admit he did a pretty good job with it, mostly because he was a quasi fiscal conservative, and Newt preached fiscal responsiblity.

In saying he "preached" partisan, what do you mean?

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

I think most politicians preach when campaigning, it's more on politicians as a whole, then slight at Obama.

It's not a slight on Obama at all.

My fault, I did not emphasize what you were referring to as preaching partisan. There, now I have put in bold what I was referring to. You on the other hand are guilty of preaching the Fighting Irish.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Meaning Obama campained (preached) bipartisanship more then other presidential hopefulls. McCain tried to follow suit, but it's my belief that he was doing it just because Obama was doing it. Reagen, Bush, Clinton, Bush II didn't talk about it near as much as Obama was what I was meaning.

You can't place all the blame on Obama, who has actually openly attempted to include Republicans int he process.....yet ignore Republicans' opposition and delay of EVERYTHING this administration has tried to accomplish.

There's no denying that since Obama's election, the country has started to become more divided. However, we should look at the source of this division.

You can't place all the blame on Obama, who has actually openly attempted to include Republicans int he process.....yet ignore Republicans' opposition and delay of EVERYTHING this administration has tried to accomplish.

There's no denying that since Obama's election, the country has started to become more divided. However, we should look at the source of this division.

This division started WAY before Obama was elected. This country has been divided for as long as I have been following politics actively. I remember the division being there with the impeachment trials of Clinton, continued through Bush v. Gore, all through the Bush presidency, and now continuing through Obama's presidency. You could make a case that it has continually gotten worse with each successive year though it for sure did not start with Obama.

French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century – that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

This division started WAY before Obama was elected. This country has been divided for as long as I have been following politics actively. I remember the division being there with the impeachment trials of Clinton, continued through Bush v. Gore, all through the Bush presidency, and now continuing through Obama's presidency. You could make a case that it has continually gotten worse with each successive year though it for sure did not start with Obama.

You know what? I agree with you. The division is at its height, but I echo your point in saying that this has been a longtime coming. It's Dems vs Repubs. Who can trump one another, or who can obstruct more. It's a neverending cycle, that I don't think we can get out of.

You can't place all the blame on Obama, who has actually openly attempted to include Republicans int he process.....yet ignore Republicans' opposition and delay of EVERYTHING this administration has tried to accomplish.

There's no denying that since Obama's election, the country has started to become more divided. However, we should look at the source of this division.

Well I for one agree with you and Hoosier saying the divide has always been there.

But to me, Obama never was Bipartisan, mostly just paying lip service. No doubt the republicans have been a blockade.

Also I've said on multiple times, I see no reason after Obama was elected for him to be Bipartisan, the country at the time wanted what he was wanting.